Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Author
Topic: Should it be a crime? (Read 22934 times)

I feel like if anyone knowingly is HIV positive and practicing unprotected sex should be hung by the neck till death.Because they are knowingly infecting people that is healthy that if it wasn't for that crimminal he or she would have live a healthy life and maybe had childrens to carry on a healthy life.This subject is very personal to me because no one has the right to cause this type of hardship on a innocent human being.Just because they are DAMED on their stupitity.

I feel like if anyone knowingly is HIV positive and practicing unprotected sex should be hung by the neck till death

there ya have it. Doesn't matter if the other party consented, or knew about the HIv status. Doesn't even matter if the other party WAS HIV positive. People with HIV are perpetrators, and those who are unlucky enough to encounter us are victims.

Forget personal repsonsibility. Forget intent. Forget even the idea of taking each case one at a time. Whether it's a fifteen year old in denial about his status or a fifty year old serial offender. Whether or not HIV is even sucessfully transmitted. Whether or not the "lifetsyle" of the "perpetrator" is such that one could reasonably expect an HIV diagnosis (which was sucessfully argued in the USA this year).

Like I said, the stigma regarding HIV infected people is enormous. And Melia, I was NOT calling YOU disingenuous. I was calling the actions of ANYONE who supports a legislative attempt to stigmatize HIV infected people, yet who complained about the ongoing stigma against the infected, a disingenuous act.

I am an honest person. I have done, and sometimes supported, dishonest things. Does that make me a bad person? Or perhaps a person with flaws? Or perhaps a person whose moral code is contingent on more factors than simple societal norms? Whose to say. Thing is, I deeply believe what I believe. And when evidence calls me to challenge and change those belienfs, I do so, from the core of my being outward.

And I find absolutely NO evidence to suggest that the lives "saved" or the justice "metered" by HIV infection "laws" outside the realm of rape do ANYTHING to stem the spread of HIV, except by further stigmatizing those who are infected. Frankly, what little justice can be done by these laws is, in my opinion, overwhelmed by the capacity for great injustice, the burglary of our dignity and privacy, the assasination of character, and the dearth of HIV prevention education that these laws enable.

Who is to decide, in a consensual relationship, when something was revealed or not? More to the point, who repairs the damage when disclosure becomes at the whim of a disaffected lover or an outraged friend? Even those who are not found guilty, are destroyed in their communities.

It continues to astound me that people think that this is collatoral damage worth reaping, in order to sow the seeds of vengeance.

There are other ways to bring people to justice who have assaulted or betrayed you sexually. And to quote ANN, to consent to having unprotected sex with another human being is to consent to the possibility of acquiring a sexually transmitted disease, including HIV. It's not right nor is it fair that men or women lie, or cheat. But thay can, and do. It's part of the deal we make when we enter into a relationship, the idea that we might well be fooled by a cunning sociopath. In the end, where is the true justice for our victimization? Do we reclaim our HIV negative status by supporting legislation that further stigmatizes our community?

I regret that you have taken this discussion so very personally. But I urge you to think beyond your situation and consider the impact, the very real and negative impact that this legislation has for the community that, like it or not, you are now a part of. That discrimination you fear? That you face? If you support this type of legislation, you are contributing to it.

That is my opinion. And considering that I was infected in a manner exceedingly close to yours, I would like to think it means something. I know what it's like to be thoroughly betrayed. To trust someone, to do all the "right" things and end up with this label thrust upon my forehead.

What made me survive 13 years and counting was to take responsibility for my personal choice. To realize and accept, even embrace the fact that my choices, my naivetee, my actions facilitated my infection. Only by owning those facts was I able to rise above the powerlessness of victimization and regain control over my life. Only by recognizing my role in my infection was I able to grow from the experience, and shed the anger and heartbreak over the event.

Someday, I hope you see that. Someday, I hope you see the obligation to the larger community and the HIV positive world as a whole. Someday, I hope you understand that your quest for justice means a great injustice for many other people. And someday, I hope that influences your opinion regarding these archaic and unjust laws.

Until then, of course, we can agree to disagree. I do not think you are disengenuous. I do, however, find the dichotomy hard to ignore.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

PS: those who are HIV positive, and who are in relationships with an HIv negative person, ought to pay careful attention to this thread. Might be a great idea to get in writing his/her acknowledgment of your disclosure. Because when all is said and done, it's your word against his/hers if things get ugly.

And the law, the media, the court of public opinion is ALWAYS going to be on the side of the "victim."

And apparently, even on aidsmeds.com, that victim is going to be the HIV negative person.

« Last Edit: August 08, 2006, 04:19:43 AM by jkinatl2 »

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

I read and understand your point of view,I was infected while using IV drugs by a drug user like me that were shooting drugs in my arm,I knew he had the deadly virus and he knew it also but he didn't care because I asked him were the water clean and he asured me it was.I went to him because I couldn't find a vain in my arm.I am being a realist,If anyone knowingly having sex with someone and shooting their cum inside a non infected person is guilty of infecting a innocent person with a deadly virus if that person donot get the virus it is attempted murder.I have had sex with alot of women since I have been dianose, but I have used condoms everytime.and I have had women to beg me not to use a condom not knowing that I am positive.I wouldn't know how to deal with myself knowing that I cause someone to have this hellish desease.

PS: those who are HIV positive, and who are in relationships with an HIv negative person, ought to pay careful attention to this thread. Might be a great idea to get in writing his/her acknowledgment of your disclosure. Because when all is said and done, it's your word against his/hers if things get ugly.

THIS IS SUPERB ADVICE.

Thanks Jonathan, it's the best advice I've gotten all month. So simple yet it never crossed my mind!! Go figure

This subject is like the objections of having cameras in stores. You all know that if you don't do the crime then there is nothing to worry about. I do agree with JK that get your disclosure down on paper. Not only do HIV+ people have to protect the status of the negative, but they also have to protect their well being also. It's as simple as that.

I can't imagine forcing people to sign documents recognizing that I've disclosed that I'm positive. Then again I've pretty much made up my mind in the last 6 years just not to mess with dating anyone negative, though my last long relationship was with someone negative. I just can't be bothered.

I'm not a lawyer but I think a verbal conversation with a witness or two would suffice in a court if the issue ever came up. This obviously could be accomplished without out the unseemliness of a document. Worked in the Schiavo case, no?

Philly, you are dead wrong in thinking that. Have you ever been in a court case? I just finished a two year court case and the lady got found guilty and she wasn't. When it comes down to you or the victim, believe me you will be found guilty.

Well personally I think disclosure is the right thing to do. I don't need any law to tell me that.

That said, it's obvious to me that the "safer sex" message is being largely ignored. All I have to do is step out on the streets and see the many teenage girls pushing their strollers around and it becomes clear enough.

Philly, you are dead wrong in thinking that. Have you ever been in a court case? I just finished a two year court case and the lady got found guilty and she wasn't. When it comes down to you or the victim, believe me you will be found guilty.

Have I been in a court case? Yes, actually I have... though nothing to do with the subject at hand. Was your court case specifically having to do with this subject? I don't see where you mentioned this court case of yours previously in the thread if I am missing it. I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Like I stated up front, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I put myself in the situation where anything that is being discussed will be an issue with me, nor do I live in a state where the law is so restrictive. All I did was suggest an alternative. If you could provide some links to show where what I said is completely baseless I'll read them. My point was that they pulled Terri Schiavo's feeding tubes with no document evidence but only on testimony of her husband and 1 or 2 other witnesses to a conversation that Terri supposedly had at one time. My point being is that a positive person told a negative person about their health status and 2 people were witnesses to this it might (emphasis "might") be admitted in a court. It's not a strictly he-said-she-said with two witnesses, that's my point.

Even going the written document route I would assume you would need to have witnesses and/or notarized or something to make it binding. I don't see that advice given.

Could really put a strain on relationships running out to the notary public every time you are about to have sex with someone.I hope it doesn't become a crime for a pos person to have sex with a neg person without telling them, for some of the reasons JK and others have stated, but to me it is a crime. Don't get me wrong, the negative person is responsible for who he has sex with, but the positive person should also be responsible for his participating in unprotected sex. Why do we judge everything on whether its legal or illegal? We should be operating on the basis of what is right and wrong and for a positive person to have unprotected sex with a negative person is just plain wrong. We shouldn't need a law to tell us that.

All this conversation about getting a 'Statement of HIV Status' signed, witnesses, etc just shows how ridiculous all this is. Something as tris crazy can only lead to one logical conclusion - people assuming responsibility for their own actions. All the court cases in the world and prisons full of HIV+ folks 'guilty' of infecting others won't reverse anybody's poz status. Being responsible for our OWN sexual activities (or IV drug use) can keep negative folks negative; that's the only thing that can keep 'em negative.

Sometimes, to prove a point, one must try to see the other side's opinions. When I try to see logic or practicality in the idea that criminally charging somebody for ACCIDENTALLY infecting a person (to reduce HIV infections), my belief that taking responsibility of our own bodies and actions is reinforced.

Could really put a strain on relationships running out to the notary public every time you are about to have sex with someone.

Generally speaking I must disagree with the above statement. If two people are mature, then they should understand that uncertainty is part of life. however it will likely put a strain on reckless abandon a.k.a. going buckwild a.k.a. fucking like bunnies

You are kidding right? You ever try finding a notary at midnight? Ever ask someone to sign a prenup? Good luck.We have people who are to preoccupied to put a rubber on but they are gonna go out looking for a notary before sex?

I just want to be clear on my part. I believe there's a moral stipulation that one at the very least have protected sex, if not full disclosure. I'd be rather aghast at those that do not. There's a difference between morality though and legal issues, though they are often intertwined. This thread is about something being a crime.

I will say that where the two people are partners and one is infected and habitually deceiving the other that I can see some sort of grounds for prosecution. However, the problem with this is that something like 30% of those infected do not know, as they have not been tested. Indeed, if we are talking morality, there's a moral imperative that both people in a partnership get tested together so that both know. Should this be required by law? I don't know. I do know if you care about your own well being and are negative you should insist on it.

Like I said I just avoid this topic by not having sex with anyone negative. Sure, that limits partners but I had tons of sex when I was young .

partner and i have an ongoing joke at the moment, every time she coughs/sneezes/exhibits any form of ill health, i threaten legal action

but 's a valid point, joking aside, something not a problem to everyone else could be (potentially) life threatening to me. Or anyone else immuno suppressed, so why/how that different to the current prosecutions? whole new kettle of fish, but i guess "reckless transmission of influenza", or chest infection, or gastroenteritis, just doesn't have same media appeal.

I don't know about all states, but in NC we require drivers to wear seatbelts, and motorcycle riders must wear helmets. Why not require everybody to practice safer sex? That way, if somebody is infected, we can criminally charge both partners. That sure would force people to share the responsibilities.

I guess many people just want their cake and to eat it, too. They want to have unprotected / unsafe sex and remain HIV negative. There's nothing wrong with wanting that; I know I sure did. You know what happened... the two just don't go hand-in-hand. To me, it boils down to this: If folks don't care enough to protect and take care of themselves, why should anybody else? Why should we enact legislation and imprison people just because somebody didn't follow safer sex guidelines? Having sex with somebody whose HIV status is unknown is not something that's required for living like eating and breathing. It's recreational. Like most recreational activities, there's a good bit of risk involved.

Like I've said before, I believe mandatory disclosure and legislation will result in more infections instead of fewer. Why? Because 1) people lie and 2) people often don't know their status. People need to take care of themselves or deal with the consequences.

David

edited to add that the first paragraph above is NOT serious. It was an attempt to show the lack of logic in the theory that legislation is the answer to HIV infections.

I don't think mandatory disclosure laws and prosecution will do a thing to stem the tide of this pandemic. I submit that if they rounded us all up and shipped us to a penal colony it would make hardly any difference at all.

Why? Well, I don't know about the nation as a whole, but here in NC, most HIV infections are transmitted by people who don't know that they are positive. They were either in the window period when they were tested or had never been tested. To help prevent this from happening, the state lab that does testing for the local health depts now does DNA PCR tests on all the negative ELISA tests. They catch some folks who are in the window period this way. Still, that only works on the people getting tested.

Mandatory disclosure laws and prosecutions will only serve to encourage people NOT to get tested. That will only compound the problem, for both the individual and society. For society, not getting tested will increase HIV transmissions, and for the individual, it will result in a diagnosis only when one is well-along with OIs.

Should we do mandatory testing then? Well, it might help, but only if it's done with great frequency (like every three months) and only if it is done on everyone. Do you think the general public will accept that? Or be willing to pay for it?

Though some may not like it, the sad fact remains that an individual is personally responsible for his or her own health in general, and sexual health in particular. We don't need disclosure laws, we need people to ask each other's status before having sex - and STILL use condoms no matter what the answer is. Some do this, many don't - they just assume the other person is negative and so things are ok. They don't know about window periods, false negatives, false positives. They probably hardly think of HIV at all, except to hope they don't get it.

I have to say, mandatory condom laws are appealing to me, but only in the regard that they would end one person blaming the other for this or that. Both would be equal in guilt. Of course, I'd have no idea how you would go about enforcing this.

Education is the way to stem this tide. Behaviors have to change. Condoms will prevent infection, but people have to be convinced to use them. And reminded to use them. Over and over and over again. Access to post-exposure prophylaxis has to be improved, and folks have to be told that it is out there and available to them.

Don't forget guys, the goal is to stop the spread of the disease, not assign blame, not point fingers. You can have all the scapegoats you want, but it isn't going to help anything. You have to convince people to have safer sex, and convince those who are sexually active to be tested frequently.

I have no idea how this thread got to this. The person that was prosecuted, INTENALLY was spreading HIV, and didn't disclose their status and was not using a condom. It didn't mention that neither didn't know their status. It's really simple don't be having unprotected sex when you KNOW you have HIV/AIDS and not disclosing your status of the disease. You KNOW you have the disease, don't pass it on to others. If you can't understand that, how the hell do you think others will? The least you can be is RESPONSIBLE. Don't blame the other person, it only takes one of you to be responsible. What is so funny, most of you are the same damn people that bitch on this forum because the government isn't doing enough for people with HIV/AIDS. The more people you infect, the less money you are going to get from the government, money that could be used for research and medicine. It doesn't take a scientist to figure that one out. I wouldn't want one person to go through what I have been through. You wonder why they have to make laws? Just read some of the posts on this thread.

Thanks Cliff. Rapid, you're yoking two things which are in fact independent.

Logged

Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

lydgate, you mind explaining? Did you happen to read WHY she got sentenced? Don't give me the bullshit that it takes two. It only takes one with some responsibility to prevent spreading of the virus. No one was ever talking about not knowing ones status. We were talking, intentionally spreading the virus. If you don't have the responsibility to wear a condom or have the other person wear a condom when you KNOW you are positive or have AIDS then DON'T have sex. Do you believe that if a person shoots a person they should pay the price? (exclude accidental or self defense) There is no difference, with intentionally spreading HIV.

Actually not, we're talking unintentionally spreading the virus if you're talking about Ms Porter, after a complaint by 3rd party who had (a far as we can tell) consensual unprotected sex with her but didn't get infected. Let's get this straight, no-one, ever, in the UK has been convicted of intentionally passing on HIV. However, at least one person has gone to jail for unintentionally passing on HIV without having had an HIV test to prove they are HIV-positive.

In the UK HIV-positive people use condoms 3/4 time compared to HIV-negative and untested people who use condoms 50% of the time, being kind to them n rounding up (you want the reference, I'll post it...)

I don't think that shooting someone is exactly parallel to this issue, because in most cases it's pretty tough to defend yourself from being shot or even to prevent the shooting in the first place. That isn't the case with sex. You can prevent acquiring a sexually transmitted disease by simply wearing a condom or making sure your sexual partners do.

I believe there is a (moral) responsibility on the part of people who know their status not to recklessly put others at risk. And I believe that each of us (positive or negative) have a responsibility to protect ourselves if we want to prevent STDs, (not everyone wants to stay STD free at all costs). I also believe that most people in the forums would agree. If someone came to the forums considering having unprotected sex with someone who was negative, (or of an unknown status), I don't think you will find very many members telling him/her to go for it. We probably all agree that there is some shared (moral) responsibility. Whether this must always be a criminal matter, is a completely different ball-game.

I say we all have a (moral) responsibility to call the cops when we see a crime in progress. Whether we should be charged with a crime if we failed to do so, is a different matter.

Mr Rod, please read my post #49 in this thread for a longish reply. It begins:

"Well I's gonna say it, sometimes I am in favour of proseution for transmission of disease agents, including HIV. I am not in favour of stupid and specific HIV laws like many US states seems to have. The UK is, I belive, well served by the old, old Offences Against the Person Act in this respect, even though HIV wasn't around when it drafted.

I am definitely in favour of procecution for intentional and malicious transmission. I am sometimes in favour for reckless transmission. It depends on the circumstances. It seems to me a world of difference between people having a one-night-stand and getting caught out, cos I think they should know better, and people who have been deceived in a relationship (for what is a relationship if not based on honesty?)."

If you believe in tranmission of HIV being a crime then it follows you must believe in transmission of ther sexually transmitted infections that case harm being crime (many of which are still eventually fatal if untreated or treated unsuccessfully, bit like HIV). But, as I said above in another post above (not #49), no-ones particularly worked up about other disease agents. Why?

If the basis for criminalization of sex, is because HIV can not be cured, then that only serves for further stigmatize the disease. I went to a forum yesterday where they were discussing HIV transmission crimes. Most people in that forum assumed that HIV was a 100% fatal disease. And most showed no shyness in being in favor of the death penalty (Americans of course) in such cases, since, as they put it, (and similar to the gun example), spreading HIV is committing murder.

Huh? It is? And we wonder why people in many communities keep their head buried in the sand. I would too, if HIV was constantly presented as a 100% deadly gloom and doom outcome.

That being said, if the test is whether or not a disease can be cured, then even that test is not applied consistently and Newt's point still stands. Why not criminalize the other diseases that can not be cured. Genital herpes can not be cured. It is a life-long disease and painful. Genital warts is difficult to cure and causes thousands of women to get cervical cancer, (as well as anal cancer, for men and women)....often with deadly results. What about the diseases that can be cured, but for which still causes bodily harm (Syphilis) if left untreated? Why should someone suffer with 2nd & 3rd stage syphilis without the possibility of retribution, if someone with HIV doesn't have to?

I'm not sure how to encapulate quotes/excerpts, but I'm trying to do that with one of Jonathon's assertions. It appears I've not got it yet, but the text follows:

PS: those who are HIV positive, and who are in relationships with an HIv negative person, ought to pay careful attention to this thread. Might be a great idea to get in writing his/her acknowledgment of your disclosure. Because when all is said and done, it's your word against his/hers if things get ugly.

Last year, I met, only on-line, an hiv+ attorney who asks for, and receives, signatures on a waiver he created expressly for this purpose. So, to affirm Jonathon's thinking, this man is an example of someone working in the legal system who realizes full-well how likely it is someone could pursuit a suit. He not only discloses in the most overt and formal of ways, but states he then takes all necessary precautions to prevent transmission and of course, protects himself, too.

Cliff, HIV doesn't kill you, it's the OI that can kill you. What do you say to all those that have posted in the Living With forum that have become resistant to all drugs? You going to tell them they have nothing to worry about? All it takes is some responsibility on either parties part to prevent the spread. We wouldn't even be having a discussion on this subject. If you have read any of the state laws that have been in-acted, it states "knowingly spreads the disease" and it is not just specific to HIV.

In regards to responsibility, we agree. As I stated above, there is a shared moral responsibility for both parties, but that doesn't mean that there always is, or should be, a legal one. If I disagree with the criminal prosecution of someone who is positive, that does not mean that I believe it is okay to intentionally infect another individual with HIV. And I do not believe that transmitting a disease, that in some (many) cases is fatal, whether by sex, drug usage or other means and be it HIV, HPV or HSV, is the same as committing murder or shooting someone.

Finally, I have not seen any information that suggest that the HIV infection rate in the US (or the UK, Australia or Canada) has decreased significantly in the last few years. If these laws were meant to help codify the responsibility each of us have in spreading (and preventing) the transmission of diseases, they seem to be failing miserably. I do not believe that you can always legislate behaviour. It certainly didn't work in preventing homosexuality.

My experience is this. I found myself in the arms of a man who nearly had me in tears for the happiness of being with him. We became sexually involved.I stopped everything.I said, ďI have to tell you something. Iím living with HIV.íHe said. ďThatís OK.Ē We both understood the terms and what we were doing. I was relaxed. My conscience was clear.I was happy.If heĎd said he couldnít handle it, I would have accepted and respected his decision. It wouldnít be right otherwise.Iíd feel like a thief if Iíd risked his health. Besides health, what else is there?I wouldnít want to give this disease to anybody.

Hi Ya All,I really had to post my opinion, this is the year 2006 everyone hivt or not has heard somewhere or other that you need to avoid unprotected sex until you know your partners status, not just hiv but other stds as well.As much as persons living with hiv have the responsibility to make sure they do not pass the disease on to someone else, persons engaging in sex need to be resposible for themselves.Not protecting yourself and then blameing someone else is like smokeing and finding out you have cancer, and then turn around and blame the cigarette companies.

Needless to say however in many cases the use of condoms in some religions is a no no.How do you tell a couple that has been together for years, each thinking that the other has remained faithful lto use condoms?I can use myself as an example, I was with my ex husband for six years before we got married, I was faithful to him , he swore he was faithful to me, we got married in 1993, in 1994 (I was living in Jamaica at the time, He was a US citizen), he filed for me to join him here in the USA, low and behold after doing the requred tests for a permanent visa, I was told thaat I had what MAGIC JOHNSON had, and i was going to die.

Surprisinlgy I found out from my ex husbands mother that he was hivt, he just forgot to tell me about it.Reality is in many cases the issue of protected sex may not apply to some persons( or so they think.There needs to be more education and awareness on the issues of protected sex, so people will begin to understand the ramifications of having unprotected sex.brandy

Let me also add that many people still think of HIV/AIDS as a gay disease, or a disease that only strikes prostitutes, drug users, or persons that live a wild lifestyle.

I have found out that persons like myself who live with this disease and have the courage to go out and put a face and a voice to the disease helps to make it more human.

There are many housewives, girlfriends and boyfriends, husbands, families, who will never see themselves at risk until it hits them in the face.Back in Jamaica I was the Vice President for the network of persons living with HIV/AIDS, and each week three or more persons were dying from aids, surprisingly it was not so much the disease itself, but the treatment and care that made persons give up, eg, if you were admitted to the hospital, you would be placed in the back away from others, and literally left to suffer.It took persons like myself and others to go into these hospitals and doucument these cases, and make them public. all in all there is still more work left to be done with regards to aids and other stds education

I am a hetero female with AIDS, I feel it is my responsibility to inform anyone I am trying to have sex with that I have AIDS. if I do not then I am a criminal and should be prosecuted. I think it was criminal that I got it. I was in a 4 year relationship with a man and thought it was a 2 person party, well come to find out after it ended it was not the case, he was out boffin every bar room whore who would lay with him, he infected me the 3rd year of our relationship, so I had it a year before I left. then didn't know I had it for years later but am happy to tell you all I did not pass it on....... I contacted the people I had been with after the fact and no one was poz, what a relief I felt. I could not have dealt with the guilt. now I make sure everyone who trys to get with me knows. some move on and no longer bother with me which is ok I would rather have supportive people by my side then someone who refuses to gain knowledge. then you have some who want to be friends and want to learn and I love to enlighten them and hope they are actually listening and keep themselves safe from this.

Pozhoneybear. Making unprotected sex a crime sure would reduce the number of births - unless we're about to go totally test tube. I hope the stigma of masturbation is reduced, if that's going to be the new reality.

I think babygirl's approach is much healthier. Ignorance is the real killer.